How Networks Interact — Peering and Transit Explained

Raindeer writes to share his article about peering and transit between networks, which begins: "In 2005, AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre famously told BusinessWeek, 'What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free. But I ain't going to let them do that...Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?' The story of how the Internet is structured economically is not so much a story about net neutrality, but rather it's a story about how ISPs actually do use AT&T's pipes for free, and about why AT&T actually wants them to do so. These inter-ISP sharing arrangements are known as 'peering' or 'transit,' and they are the two mechanisms that underlie the interconnection of networks that form the Internet. In this article, I'll take a look at the economics of peering and transit in order to give you a better sense of how traffic flows from point A to point B on the Internet, and how it does so mostly without problems, despite the fact that the Internet is a patchwork quilt of networks run by companies, schools, and governments."

Re:Summary Clarification

[PPH]

That's a good basic description. But those details aside, I'm surprised at Whitacre's statement. He either doesn't understand these concepts and is allowing AT&T to get screwed over by other network operators. Or he understands his contractual obligation to transfer packets for peer networks, but he wants to pry those packets open and charge the owners of those packets (which which he has no contractual relationship) additional fees.

In the first case, he should be removed from his position by the shareholders ASAP, as he is damaging his companies profits. In the second case, he should be removed ASAP and charged with racketeering as well.

If I hire trucking company A to cary my packages, and they subcontract with B to actually haul them, what B (Whitacre) is doing is prying open my parcels in the back of his truck, finding my name and address and threatening not to deliver them unless I pay him as well. We drove the Mob out of the trucking business years ago.

The Fundamental Problem with Net Nonneutrality

[slimjim8094]

if AT&T decides to be an ass, it's beneficial for the big players to just avoid AT&T and call their bluff. You can't sell bandwidth that doesn't go anywhere, and AT&T is hoping that companies will just roll over and not realize that they add value.

Seems like the kind of thing Google would be liable to do... teach the ISPs a lesson and whatnot. If Google just avoided AT&T's network for a day, I guarantee that concessions would be made.

Bandwidth is already purchased at both ends - Slashdot pays for bandwidth, I pay for bandwidth, and it works. AT&T can't triple-dip.

The root problem that needs fixing...

[It doesn't come easy]

...is a fundamental conflict of interest.

When AT&T said "What they [Google, Vonage, and others] would like to do is to use my pipes free.", they meant "What they [Google --content provider--, Vonage --service provider--, and others --various providers--] would like to do is to use my [AT&T -- connection provider & content provider -- ] pipes free.

Now, if AT&T separated the connection service from the content, I think we could put a fair and equitable system in place. But as long as AT&T co-mingles the connection service (i.e. infrastructure) with any other service they provide they will never find it in their interest to give competitors equal access to the connection. This is easy enough to predict. Simply look at the current state of DSL providers that have to use AT&T's wires. They are practically non-existent. If AT&T is unwilling to allow connection competition and have the ability to avoid it, obviously they will be equally unwilling to allow search engine competition or digital TV competition or any other service they choose to get into or provide via partner arrangements.

I am no fan of increased government regulation, but if we end up with non net neutrality then we absolutely need government regulation that will set standard fees for network service costs to be paid to the infrastructure provider AND AT&T (and Comcast and DirecPC and everyone else) must be forced to separate the infrastructure business from the service business.

As an aside, I think the FCC should also require an accounting for the high speed infrastructure that AT&T and others promised when they gladly took advantage of the incentives they were given to build such an infrastructure and then never did [pbs.org]. Had they kept their promise, it's likely we would not have the "PtP problem" (if it even exists) they are using to push the tiered internet idea.

Re:The root problem that needs fixing...

[bendodge]

I used to think that way, but I'm starting to wonder just what would happen if the FCC let AT&T do whatever they want. Companies like Google and Verizon have deep pockets and lots of infrastructure; what would happen if they quit using AT&T's lines? It might actually force a shakeup in the infrastructure, and as long as we can keep from getting proprietary new protocols and more government involvement along the way, it would be a really good thing.

I only half-know what I'm saying, so please point out any big holes.

Re:Pollyanna Peering World?

[macraig]

It involved AT&T and Cogent, if I recall, and it lasted a few days. It sectioned off a subset of Web sites and completely prevented access until it was resolved. Someone told me it wasn't the first time it had happened.

The Internet is common shared infrastructure, and as such is exactly where one would want a socialistic system rather than some allegedly well-functioning market: the people should retain ownership of it.

We haven't allowed (generally) road construction crews to own the sections of physical roads that they built and maintained, have we? We at least correctly identified roads as shared infrastructure and acted accordingly, but we screwed up with AT&T back in the Nineteenth Century; we failed to recognize what they were doing as shared infrastructure and set a bad precedent that led to more trouble in this century. An even bigger mistake was made 25 years ago when some idiots thought the way to correct the original stupidity was to "break up" AT&T... and consequently ownership of all that shared infrastructure as well. We've been paying for that compounded stupidity ever since. That infrastructure should have been returned to public ownership instead, and AT&T returned to contractor status. (I can't decide whether AT&T should have been left a monopoly but forced to go non-profit or pseudo-governmental.)

Sorry for the rant. I wouldn't have learned anything at all about peering disputes this year if AT&T had been asked to sell its telegraph wires to We The People 125 years ago.

Puff up, they hate it when you do that.

[VertigoMan]

aving the unfortunate experience of working for AT&T in the past I have to say a few things. First, this is not an unusual move for them. Standard ops for them seem to be finding ways to screw both the customers and their employees. Second, (and I'm not up on the full technical way things work) is that this looks like the basics on how phone lines work as well. It would make sense considering that the net was originally distributed across the phone network. If I'm correct then the same regulations that govern the fair use and billing practices should apply to both. Users at both ends are paying to connect to their provider and those providers have agreements with other providers to use each others networks to complete the connection between their customers. Hell some providers may even "lease" lines from AT&T. A good part of MCI's network was leased back in the day; I know this for a fact as I had to deal with the collection of funds when MCI went through bankruptcy. So basically it's posturing by someone at AT&T trying to impress the board and shareholders by telling them they have come up with a new way to milk people for money. Legal, ethical, until they actually attempt to charge its just posturing.